Should the Presidency be a single six year term?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 27, 2024, 04:19:29 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Should the Presidency be a single six year term?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Poll
Question: Should the Presidency be a single six year term?
#1
Yes
 
#2
No
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 57

Author Topic: Should the Presidency be a single six year term?  (Read 4208 times)
Miles
MilesC56
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,325
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: April 22, 2013, 10:11:53 AM »

What Senate Class would the President's term correspond with? Thats one of the things I dislike the most about this idea.  You would always have Presidential Class and two off-year Classes.
Logged
emailking
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,384
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: April 22, 2013, 11:09:22 AM »

It would have been interesting if we had done this after FDR instead of 2 terms....Do Clinton and Gore ever happen?

No. Since they were born years after the proposed change to history, the butterfly effect ensures they would not even be born.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,156
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: April 22, 2013, 11:29:46 AM »

It would have been interesting if we had done this after FDR instead of 2 terms....Do Clinton and Gore ever happen?

No. Since they were born years after the proposed change to history, the butterfly effect ensures they would not even be born.

Not quite. William Jefferson Blythe, III was born before the 22nd Amendment was sent to the States by Congress. His upbringing might have some butterflies, but there's no plausible reason for them to significantly affect his childhood.

Gore was born before it was ratified.  Conceivably, butterflies might have affected Gore since the difference in Congressional debates might well have caused Al Gore Sr. to have had different children after Nancy.  But there would still have been a good chance for a person named Al Gore Jr. with a substantially similar upbringing to our Al Gore Jr.
Logged
emailking
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,384
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: April 22, 2013, 02:38:52 PM »

Not quite. William Jefferson Blythe, III was born before the 22nd Amendment was sent to the States by Congress. His upbringing might have some butterflies, but there's no plausible reason for them to significantly affect his childhood.

Ahh, I took after FDR to mean immediatley after. But I think your interpretation is probably what he meant, yes.

Gore was born before it was ratified.  Conceivably, butterflies might have affected Gore since the difference in Congressional debates might well have caused Al Gore Sr. to have had different children after Nancy.  But there would still have been a good chance for a person named Al Gore Jr. with a substantially similar upbringing to our Al Gore Jr.

With a very different genetic code though.  The parents may not have even had a son. If they did it would be like a brother in terms of similarity. I think I'm still ok on Gore. Wink
Logged
King
intermoderate
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,356
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: April 22, 2013, 04:46:26 PM »

Ah, but the ratification would have had a substantial effect on Clinton's upbringing.  Willie claims that the 1957 integration of Little Rock High and him meeting President Kennedy in 1963 had profound effects on him.

In Ernest's timeline, perhaps Eisenhower acts earlier to force integrate schools without re-election to worry about in 1956 and the President in 1963 would be the less inspirational Humphrey.
Logged
TDAS04
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,544
Bhutan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: April 22, 2013, 06:48:23 PM »

No.  Presidential terms should remain at four years, but the term limits should be modified; three terms should be permitted. 
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,156
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: April 22, 2013, 07:16:39 PM »

Ah, but the ratification would have had a substantial effect on Clinton's upbringing.  Willie claims that the 1957 integration of Little Rock High and him meeting President Kennedy in 1963 had profound effects on him.

In Ernest's timeline, perhaps Eisenhower acts earlier to force integrate schools without re-election to worry about in 1956 and the President in 1963 would be the less inspirational Humphrey.

Actually, Ike might not have had anything to act on.  It would have been Truman and not Ike who appointed the replacement for Chief Justice Vinson in this timeline, and Truman might have gone with a southern conservative to help mend the Democratic Party. In any case, there would be no Warren Court deciding Brown v. Board of Education, as even if Truman appointed someone similar, he'd appoint a Democrat.
Logged
DevotedDemocrat
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 442
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.00, S: 0.02

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: April 22, 2013, 08:18:31 PM »

No.  Presidential terms should remain at four years, but the term limits should be modified; three terms should be permitted. 

I personally think we should go back to no term limits. The vote of the majority is a natural term limit.
Logged
Smid
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,151
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: April 22, 2013, 08:38:16 PM »

If there was no Nixon presidency, would there have been a Southern strategy? If not, would the Democrats now be a socially conservative party, and if so, where would they be most competitive? South and Rustbelt?
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,156
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: April 22, 2013, 09:37:57 PM »

If there was no Nixon presidency, would there have been a Southern strategy? If not, would the Democrats now be a socially conservative party, and if so, where would they be most competitive? South and Rustbelt?

Nixon might have pursued a Southern Strategy sooner than otherwise would have been the case, but I think it would have inevitably been pursued.  The Democratic Party's embrace of civil rights and African-American votes would have made Southern White Conservatives low hanging fruit that would have been gone after by the GO Pin its quest to end its status as the permanent minority party in the House.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.226 seconds with 14 queries.